As students head back to school, it’s the perfect time to take stock of how young people are reshaping democracy from the classroom to the ballot box. This week’s Best of the Expanded Democracy 5 spotlights five of our favorite stories on the power and potential of young voters:
🗳️ Allowing 17-year-olds to vote (June 12th)
⚖️ Reform Stacking on College Campuses (July 24th)
🚻 Gen Z’s Gender Divide is Reshaping Global Democracy (June 6th)
🔢 Surging Use of Ranked Choice Voting on Campus (April 17th)
🇯🇵 How the “Japanese First” Party Gained Support from Young Voters in Midterms (July 24th)
#1. Expanding the Franchise for 17-Year-olds in Primaries
[Teens 16 and 17 get to vote in Alameda County school board races. Source: LA Times]
Across the country, a quiet but growing reform is reshaping who gets a say in our democracy: allowing 17-year-olds to vote in primaries so long as they’ll be 18 by the general election. Advocates argue this simple change can have outsized impacts: strengthening youth engagement, increasing turnout, and ensuring that young voters have a voice in deciding who appears on their November ballot. It is also eminently logical: if a citizen is eligible to elect someone in November, they should have the opportunity to vote in primaries and pick the nominees for that election.
According to Ballotpedia, 27 states and Washington, D.C., now allow some form of 17-year-old primary voting. In many cases, this applies to presidential primaries, but in others, it also includes 19 states for congressional and state primaries. This means millions of high school seniors, many of whom are politically aware and civically engaged, can participate in shaping the choices available in general elections.
FairVote notes that this reform can be especially effective when combined with civic education and pre-registration programs. In Maryland, for instance, pre-registered 17-year-olds voted at higher rates than older first-time voters in 2020, thanks in part to targeted outreach and school-based engagement. Allowing 17-year-olds to vote isn’t just symbolic; it has tangible results.
The principle is simple: if eligible to vote in November, you should have a say in the ballot. States seeking to boost Gen Z civic participation find this reform appealing due to its bipartisan support, low cost, and measurable impact. With the 2026 midterms approaching, expanding primary voting rights to 17-year-olds might be one of the most straightforward and impactful steps we can take.
#2. Reform Stacking on College Campuses
Universities have historically been at the forefront of innovation and reform - from advocating for divestment in South Africa in the 1980s to supporting women’s suffrage in the 1910s. Today, students have taken an increasing role in championing electoral reform. According to FairVote, more than 100 universities from across the country use RCV in campus elections, ranging from Arizona State to LSU. In a promising sign for the reform movement, RCV rarely gets implemented alone.
Students overwhelmingly like RCV, with many of their campus uses requiring a vote of the student body. They can also implement RCV more and more easily in online voting. As technology and AI play an increasing role in dictating American behavior and interactions, discussions about the viability of mobile voting have become increasingly relevant. While successful pilot programs have been run in states across the country, most notably West Virginia, security concerns have prevented many lawmakers from endorsing a national rollout of online voting.
College campuses, however, are not burdened by these concerns. In colleges and universities across the country, RCV implementation has been accompanied by the use of innovative online voting systems, many of them student-designed. As more universities adopt online voting systems, their experiences will provide a proving ground for mobile voting, serving as early indicators of best practices.
George Washington University provides a strong example of the value of “stacking” electoral reforms. GW adopted RCV for its student body presidential and vice presidential elections in 2020. In order to implement the program successfully, they used a university-specific student organization program called Engage, which allowed registered students to vote during a specific time period. Before GW used Engage, their student voting system OrgSync, had no capacity to carry out RCV. Without a technological upgrade, RCV would have been beyond GW’s reach.
GW joins a number of other schools that use online platforms to implement RCV, including Northwestern University, Georgia State University, Purdue College, and Grinnell College. Grinnell College has gone so far as to use software created by an undergraduate student, allowing them to effortlessly tabulate complex RCV results. These schools serve as a small-scale model of use, both of RCV and mobile voting, that can be adapted by other universities and private institutions. They also provide a compelling look into the interdependence of electoral progress. Reforms like these often complement one another, providing a helpful tool that can and should be used to facilitate collaboration and forward motion.
#3. Gen Z’s Gender Divide is Reshaping Global Democracy
A widening gender gap among Gen Z voters is greatly influencing democratic elections globally. Young men are increasingly gravitating towards right-wing ideologies, often expressing concerns about issues like mandatory military service and perceived job discrimination. Conversely, young women tend to support left-leaning positions, focusing on progressive causes and gender equality. This divergence is evident in countries such as South Korea, France, the UK, Germany, Canada, and the US, where differing economic realities and aspirations between Gen Z men and women are influencing political landscapes.
Experts warn that this politicization of gender differences, if unaddressed, could hinder consensus on major social issues like taxation and welfare. Addressing economic insecurity and fostering dialogue between young men and women is critical to restoring democratic unity. As this generation becomes an increasingly influential voting bloc, understanding and addressing the factors driving this gender-based political divergence will be essential for the health and unity of democracies worldwide.
#4. Surging Use of Ranked Choice Voting on Campus
[FairVote chart on states with at least one college using RCV]
Ranked choice voting (RCV) continues its steady march across American campuses, with over 100 colleges and universities now using RCV to elect student leaders - representing nearly every state in the country. Elections just this week included wins by Andrew Boanoh at Yale, Ethan Lynne at George Washington, Jack Steffen at Emory’s Oxford College, and Abigail Verino at UC-Berkeley (with nearly 10,000 votes cast) and current elections at New Jersey Institute for Technology.
This surge reflects a generational demand for more voice and choice, not just a procedural change. Research consistently shows that young Americans are both more open to electoral reforms like ranked choice voting (RCV) and open primaries and more likely to support systems that reward collaboration over conflict. On campuses, students are embracing RCV as a way to avoid “vote splitting” and ensure winners have broad support - values that mirror growing national support for reforms like RCV in local and state elections.
#5. Far-Right “Japanese First” Party Gains Ground in “Mid-Term” Election
[A Japanese First rally. Source: Reuters]
In Japan’s recent upper‑house elections, the far‑right Sanseitō party (also known as the “Japanese First” party) made striking gains, expanding its representation from a single seat in 2022 to 15 out of 248 seats this year. This surge offers insight into broader structural and political shifts within Japan’s democratic system.
Founded in 2020 and led by Sohei Kamiya, Sanseitō has leveraged YouTube and social media to build a devoted following. Its platform blends anti-vaccine and anti-globalist rhetoric with nationalist themes, consolidating under a simplified “Japanese First” slogan reminiscent of populist movements abroad. Sanseitō’s rise corresponds with significant erosion of the ruling coalition’s majority. Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), long dominant since 1955, lost its upper-house control, securing just three fewer seats than needed. Economic concerns, rising costs, stagnant incomes, and consumer frustration have fueled dissatisfaction with established parties. Sanseitō has campaigned on reducing immigration, curtailing welfare for non-Japanese residents, resisting gender and diversity reforms, and advocating for more traditional societal roles. Although a small percentage of Japan’s population is foreign-born (~3.8%), those economic and cultural anxieties have enabled Sanseitō to tap into broader voter concerns.
This electoral shift reflects several structural dynamics that have recently shifted. When mainstream parties fail to address public grievances, fringe actors can transition from social media virality to electoral success, creating an opening for populist outsiders. In addition, the LDP’s long-term control is fracturing, with voters exploring alternative nationalistic and populist voices. This led to the weakening of one-party dominance. Lastly, Sanseitō’s leveraged media to gain the youth vote. Core support includes younger voters and those mobilized via digital platforms, underscoring generational and technological shifts in political engagement.
This realignment prompts several system-level questions: Is Japan entering a phase of political pluralization, moving beyond LDP dominance? Could nationalist-populist parties shift policy debates around immigration, defense, and social cohesion? And what reforms might reinforce democratic resilience, such as civic education or structured media oversight? Understanding Sanseitō's rise requires situating it within the context of systemic vulnerability, rather than focusing solely on individual rhetoric. It highlights how democratic systems can become vulnerable to populist surges when traditional parties appear unresponsive or out of touch—a potential lesson for American leaders, who oversee many state legislatures that have been run by one party for decades.
From a systems perspective, the Japanese upper house elections serve an analogous function to midterm elections in the United States. That is, between elections for the most powerful offices in a country, there can be elections that give voters an opportunity to send a message to those in power.. This “pressure valve” might help voters feel more in control, while also giving those in power more chances to respond to voters and adjust course before the next election.. Some of our states and cities lack such “mid-terms” and are missing out because of it.